» Articles » PMID: 39585903

An Inductive Bias for Slowly Changing Features in Human Reinforcement Learning

Overview
Specialty Biology
Date 2024 Nov 25
PMID 39585903
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Identifying goal-relevant features in novel environments is a central challenge for efficient behaviour. We asked whether humans address this challenge by relying on prior knowledge about common properties of reward-predicting features. One such property is the rate of change of features, given that behaviourally relevant processes tend to change on a slower timescale than noise. Hence, we asked whether humans are biased to learn more when task-relevant features are slow rather than fast. To test this idea, 295 human participants were asked to learn the rewards of two-dimensional bandits when either a slowly or quickly changing feature of the bandit predicted reward. Across two experiments and one preregistered replication, participants accrued more reward when a bandit's relevant feature changed slowly, and its irrelevant feature quickly, as compared to the opposite. We did not find a difference in the ability to generalise to unseen feature values between conditions. Testing how feature speed could affect learning with a set of four function approximation Kalman filter models revealed that participants had a higher learning rate for the slow feature, and adjusted their learning to both the relevance and the speed of feature changes. The larger the improvement in participants' performance for slow compared to fast bandits, the more strongly they adjusted their learning rates. These results provide evidence that human reinforcement learning favours slower features, suggesting a bias in how humans approach reward learning.

References
1.
Posch M . Win-stay, lose-shift strategies for repeated games-memory length, aspiration levels and noise. J Theor Biol. 1999; 198(2):183-95. DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.1999.0909. View

2.
Kemp C, Tenenbaum J . Structured statistical models of inductive reasoning. Psychol Rev. 2009; 116(1):20-58. DOI: 10.1037/a0014282. View

3.
Balduzzi S, Rucker G, Schwarzer G . How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019; 22(4):153-160. PMC: 10231495. DOI: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117. View

4.
Lake B, Ullman T, Tenenbaum J, Gershman S . Building machines that learn and think like people. Behav Brain Sci. 2016; 40:e253. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X16001837. View

5.
Barr D, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily H . Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J Mem Lang. 2014; 68(3). PMC: 3881361. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001. View